Suppose you have a dispute with a neighbor. You can't reach an agreement on your own- each of you thinks he is right and refuses to budge. Do you start beating the neighbor with a rake? Well, hopefully not.
The common solution is to seek arbitration.
Now, there is no "only way" this is done, but there are some fairly consistent trends, and this is what I'll describe to you now.
Either you choose a mutually-satisfactory arbitrator, or you allow your respective representatives (you do have one, right?) to get together to hire one for the case. There are many who offer arbitration services full-time, and even more people who have gained a reputation for fairness and wisdom who are sought out even though it is not their "real job". Any fees are paid up front.
If a person simply refuses to enter arbitration, or will not agree to any arbitrator that is suggested, they have already "lost". I'll discuss the "loser" later.
The arbitrator will hear both sides, and do any investigation he deems necessary (either personally or through investigators employed for that specific purpose).
Rights, and respect for liberty are the top considerations. Contracts and other agreements fall only slightly below those- and it will be considered whether those agreements violate natural rights in any way. That isn't always a deal-breaker, though.
The decision is then rendered, and the parties will have already agreed to abide by the decision as a part of signing on for the arbitration.
Now, there is no "enforcement" of a decision. So how do you make the "loser" follow through? You don't. However, failing to abide by the decision is a huge strike against an individual's reputation, and reputation is very important in Libertopia.
The "winner" who is left holding the bag is perfectly free to spread the word about the failure of the "loser" to live up to his obligation. Most people will choose to avoid entering into deals with people who are known to not be trustworthy. Or, they will charge more due to perceived risk.
And if you think it is getting hard to hide from your past in the early days of the internet, wait til you get here! Sure, it can be done, but it is complicated and inconvenient enough that it will still usually remove the uncooperative fellow from your life so that at least he won't be bothering you anymore. And even if he runs far away, his past will probably still come back to haunt him since a man without an established reputation will find it hard to do business with anyone (without, once again, paying a premium).
Is this perfect? No. Fallible human beings are involved. Is it the best system yet devised? I certainly think so, and so do a lot of others apparently, since it is all completely voluntary and very few choose to opt out.
.
Sounds like a court without enforcement. Some people won't abide by arbitration, for instance if the hit on their rep is deemed less detrimental than the economic hit of abiding. If enough prominent people stop abiding, the system loses it's legitimacy. Who cares about the character of the owner of the grocery store as long as the prices are low?
ReplyDeleteYou care about the character of the grocery store owner because that's how you trust that he isn't watering down the whiskey, or selling you chicken that marinated in its own feces for a few days before making it to the meat cooler. You care about the character of the grocery store owner because that's how you trust that he isn't charging you for a pound of sugar and only giving you 15 oz. In Libertopia, reputation is everything because there is no government to insulate bad guys from the consequences of their actions.
ReplyDeleteAnd, it isn't a "system"- it's a way of doing things that isn't imposed by anyone, but voluntarily followed because it works. If it stops working, people will start doing something else. That's how it goes when someone isn't pointing a gun in your face and saying "this is how you will do this or else!"
Constantly replacing the method further reduces it's legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteUnless the full arbitration is made public, what's to stop the one who fails to abide from slandering the other, for instance saying the arbitrator was biased?
Another thought, the ditch digging laborers of Libertopia who have minimal assets would have less incentive to abide by a ruling. As long as they have some good references from previous employers, why would a future employer care if they paid restitution for getting drunk and running over somebody's kid?
The current system is only "legitimate" because it compels us to act as if it is. Its a terrible system, but a system is only as good as the people who run it.
"Constantly replacing the method further reduces it's legitimacy."
ReplyDeleteSo, today's computers or telephones are less "legitimate" than those of the 1950s? Constantly replacing is called "refining", and it is how you arrive at an increasingly better solution to anything.
"Unless the full arbitration is made public..."
Who says it couldn't be? That would probably be a standard condition- if you abide by the arbitrator's decision the details will be kept private; if you do not everything will be made public. And I would imagine arbitrators would keep records of various sorts to back up the claims, both to protect their own reputation and to make sure the "loser" couldn't get away with making false claims about the process.
"why would a future employer care if they paid restitution for getting drunk and running over somebody's kid?"
Because the business could be held liable for hiring people who were known to be ducking responsibility if a problem occurs on the job. If you already know that someone isn't trustworthy, would you really want them working for you and representing your company? If you do, then no one would stop you, but your company might not be as hireable if it is known you hire people like that. If nothing else, you'd probably have to charge less for your services, unless you can make it up in other ways- in which case you are still having to work at a discount. How would you explain to your customers your decision to hire the kid killer (who shirks responsibility) if he was responsible for an on-the-job incident that hurt people? Would your company be ready to pay that restitution? And possibly lose business due to your hiring decisions?
The current system isn't legitimate. All the compulsion to act as though it is only proves how illegitimate it really is. You can't make a bad system good by putting previously good people into positions to run it. You can't have good people propping up a bad system, or they are no longer good. Good people find good alternatives instead of trying to fix a system that isn't broken, but is working exactly as designed.
Computers and telephones are a bad example. They are inanimate tools. If the company you worked for replaced management evry 6 months, how legitimate would that management seem to you? Would you value their ideas as much knowing that in 6 months a new group will be there wanting to do things differently?
ReplyDeleteFalse claims work. If I come out of arbitration with a decision I don't like and immediately go on the offensive mud-slinging-political-add-style and win public oppinion before you can react with the truth I can at least sow doubt about your "truth". PR is all appearance, how else do these corrupt idiots get re-elected?
The argument about being liable for hiring people who duck responsibility may matter in a management or public relations role, but with laborers, as long as their last employer gives them a good reference, why should an employer look into their personal life. I'm assuming you haven't managed minimum wage employees lately, imagine an adult who hasn't gained any skills worth more than 8 an hour (or whatever it is now), showing up is usually enough to get hired.
Legitimacy is a matter of perception.I know you are anti-system and will never percieve any system as legitimate, but most of the world's population are pro system, some of them VERY pro, systems aren't going anywhere. Putting good people in charge of a system means they will work to create a good system. Assuming you can actually get good people, which seems to be a problem.
"If the company you worked for replaced management evry 6 months, how legitimate would that management seem to you?"
ReplyDeleteNo less legitimate than a company whose management was incompetent.
"Would you value their ideas as much knowing that in 6 months a new group will be there wanting to do things differently?"
That's the reality of the "corporate world", anyway, even if the actual warm bodies in management don't change. Follow this management fad today, the new management fad in 6 months. It just means there is a realization that something is less-than optimal in the way it is being done. In fact, I'd rather see that than a dogged determination to drive "full speed ahead" right over the cliff.
"False claims work. If I come out of arbitration with a decision I don't like and immediately go on the offensive mud-slinging-political-add-style and win public oppinion before you can react with the truth I can at least sow doubt about your 'truth'."
Yet, when the same people always seem to be doing this, others learn to see it for what it is. If everyone is always conspiring against you (at least by your claims), people get wise to you. I have known several people who are always being "victimized" or "cheated on" by everyone around them. It isn't hard to figure out that the others are not the problem. In a future free society where the internet continues to evolve into a repository of information, how can a person hide from their history if this same pattern keeps repeating? Even if they move.
"...with laborers, as long as their last employer gives them a good reference, why should an employer look into their personal life."
"Drug tests"? And this isn't in a free society. The reasons I gave earlier would probably only become a big issue in a society where there isn't the protection for the corrupt and dishonest that comes from that conjoined government/business twin called "The Corporation". If you didn't mind hiring people known to be dishonest (or dangerously negligent), and you weren't worried about your customers finding out, then you could do what you want.
"I know you are anti-system...
Not necessarily. I am against systems based on coercion and theft. If you want to set up a system that can be participated in, or opted out of, voluntarily, I might even sign up. I just don't see systems as necessary for getting things done.
"systems aren't going anywhere"
Neither is death, disease, and dishonesty. Does that mean we advocate not working to lessen their impact?
"Putting good people in charge of a system means they will work to create a good system."
Unless, as seems to be shown by thousands of years of experience, becoming a part of such a coercive system corrupts any good people and makes them just as bad as the power-mad tyrants who are naturally drawn to such positions. I don't think there are many people "good" enough to be uncorruptible when given permission to "run" other people's lives. History supports my view. It just isn't worth the risk of believing it's possible.
There will never be a society without problems. There is no Utopia. But, I would rather be subjected to the inconveniences of "too much" liberty than by the inconveniences of too little. And I am in good company.
" And I am in good company."
DeleteYou're in the minority.
What happens with crimes like shoplifting in a case where the perp gets away, but is identified?
Do you know of an example of a libertarian government (or whatever it would be called) in history?
Interestin coincidence, proving I'm not a robot for this comment, one of the words I was asked to type was "government"!
I was just thinking of all the minorities I am in:
Delete- My ubiquitous hat wearing,
- My IQ,
- My height,
- My understanding that rights don't come from government and "shall not be infringed" means just what it says,
- My hair length,
The list could actually go on and on.
"- My understanding that rights don't come from government and "shall not be infringed" means just what it says,"
DeleteAnd yet you claim they are being infringed.
Of course those rights are being infringed. And that is always wrong.
DeleteRights can be respected or they can be violated (there is no third choice) regardless of where they originate. The rights still exist even if someone is violating them.
You have a right to not be murdered, but that doesn't mean a murderer will respect that right- it just means that if he tries you have the right to try to stop him by any means necessary. It doesn't mean your right goes away just because some evil person chooses to violate you. Any violation of rights is evil, whether it's Charles Manson or Officer "Friendly" doing it,.
Looking at "the majority" makes me not too concerned about being in the minority.
ReplyDeleteEven if, so far, the voluntary side seems to be the losing side. "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." ~ Malcolm Reynolds
I'd rather be right.
"What happens with crimes like shoplifting in a case where the perp gets away, but is identified?"
Publicize the theft. Even now this happens. With hilarious results. If the thief complains about the publicity, let him seek arbitration.
"Do you know of an example of a libertarian government (or whatever it would be called) in history?"
Many people point to medieval Iceland. But I think "libertarian" and "government" are mutually exclusive concepts. If a "government" doesn't use coercion and theft, it isn't a government, and if it does, it can't be libertarian. But I don't need historical examples. Just like I can't point to examples of historical things that didn't exist until recently. I do my best to follow libertarian principles in all my personal interactions regardless of how others relate to me. That's because the Zero Aggression Principle doesn't tell me how others are supposed to behave, but how I must behave toward others.
I love when the word verification seems appropriate.
I just don't see people used to the humiliation of the food stamp line being shamed by a newspaper posting saying they didn't abide by voluntary mediation. I would be surprised if they showed up, plenty of people don't show up for court knowing they will be arrested if caught for something else, which they usually are.
ReplyDeleteShaming requires a culture that feels shame. I don't think we have that anymore at any economic level.
Also, it seems organised crime could run extortion rackets pretty freely. If you think having the mob in the teamsters union is bad, imagine if they were the fire service! "Nice house ya got here, be a shame if it burned down. Sign here and it won't."
Remember that this is based upon a free society. Some of it works now; some would require the safety net (for crooks) of government to be removed before it would be effective.
ReplyDeleteShunning and the rest of this isn't necessarily about shame. It is about starving to death in the cold if no one wants to risk doing business with you. Sure, it might not get through to the worst people at first. They'll learn or suffer.
The reason they show up is that the consequences of accepting arbitration are less painful than the consequences of refusing.
If a mob took over fire fighting and made a threat like that you would be justified in shooting them for threatening to initiate force. And if they threatened you, you can be fairly sure you weren't the first. And really, how is your mob scenario worse than what we have now? If you don't pay protection money the mob still takes your house and murders you if you resist.
If a mafia-based fire company got established, there is no way it could enforce a monopoly (that would be the first sign they weren't legitimate). If they threatened their upstart competition, self defense would be in order and there is nothing "legitimate" they could do about it. No government to co-opt for their benefit. If they failed to prevent a fire, or to put it out quickly enough, depending on your contract, they might be liable for all your losses. How would that work in their economic self interest?
I'd be surprised if they would fight fire at all. As for rivals, they "sleep with the fishes".
DeleteSeriously, though, a criminals biggest advantage is not resorting to violence, but starting there. For instance, if you decide to start a rival fire service, your house burns down. The next day somebody you've never seen before comes up and says stay out of the fire business or else.
Or they don't care about your rival business, they charge for protection anyway and you let you fight the fires. The customer has to pay both of you, they pay the mob to not start fires and you to put out any that get started accidently.
How does a decent person fight an anonomous organisation who doesn't worry about evidence or killing the wrong person? When you muster your troops, where do you go? You need evidence or you'll be the one getting screwed in arbitration for killing a person with no provable connection to the crime.
You can't completely get rid of crime because you can't get rid of all the bad people. Some people are anti-social in the most literal sense that they are anti-society. They just don't care. Today they are kept in check by constant investigation by people who's only job is investigating organised crime. Even if they don't catch them all or prevent every act, they do make things more difficult and divert criminal's resources to avoiding or bribing them.
Its a problem of organised bad guys against un organised, or loosely organised, good guys. Read up on Sicily, the mob pretty much runs the island and they're alot more violent over there when things don't go their way. Its actually pretty interesting especially regarding libertarianism. The mob is an informal, consentual group that has formalised, complete with full hierarchy and succession, into a de facto government. The majority of the people in the world seem to want to be part of a group and to follow rules.
Meanwhile, you and I are freed up from constantly investigation everybody with a name like Gambini and can start businesses and grow the economy or create new technologies, whatever our individual contribution might be. That's the biggest benefit of full law enforcement.
I know when I say law enforcement your first thought is probably Boston and Dorner and all the stupid SWAT raids that have been happening. Seeing as that is a growing problem I think the root is poor screening of candidates which has led to a change of mind set to law ENFORCEMENT from peace officer. Its a human failing as are all problems with "the system". I have also noticed that the bigger the city the bigger the problems in both criminals and cops.
No law, agency or organisation comes into being without enough individuals willing to work to put it together and run it. Its always the individuals fault.
You've fallen to the very weakest defense of the State- saying that we need to keep allowing people to coerce and steal to prevent other people from coercing and stealing.
Delete"How does a decent person fight an anonomous organisation who doesn't worry about evidence or killing the wrong person? When you muster your troops, where do you go? You need evidence or you'll be the one getting screwed in arbitration for killing a person with no provable connection to the crime."
Yep. So it sucks to have to avoid killing the wrong people? Government (and other mobs) get to kill with impunity (and with a weak burden of proof), and you believe this is good? I don't. It's a "burden" I am willing to bear.
When you distinguish between the mob and government you are imagining a distinction where none exists. You are also falling into the "Worst Case Scenario" trap. Watch this video if you doubt me: Why Libertarianism is so dangerous.
All mafias will limit acts by their competitors. That is no reason to support the one which happens to be the Big Deal right now. And, yes, if a group uses theft and coercion to get its way it IS a government, no matter what you might call it. And it is always wrong no matter how much you wish to justify it.
"Meanwhile, you and I are freed up from constantly investigation everybody with a name like Gambini and can start businesses and grow the economy or create new technologies, whatever our individual contribution might be. That's the biggest benefit of full law enforcement."
I can't start a business because I can't afford the protection money from your favorite mafia. How does that benefit me?
I have no need or desire to investigate any "Gambinis" or anyone else. I need no "law enforcement". And neither do you. You are just desperately seeking problems- what I have heard referred to as "buying trouble".
I disagree that I am "desparately seeking problems". I see these things in the news all over the world and what jumps out at me is the surprisingly large number of people who will not, by choice, get along in society. The story is the same. Its like some people have an over abundance of assertiveness and not only won't be told what to do, they also have a need to dominate others. These are the people you (and I) don't like in gov. and I see them as driven to create their own "fiefdom" regardless of what system exists.
DeleteMafia controld local gov in Sicily, Hitler went through more or less legit channels then remodeled gov, Bolsheviks just overthrew the existing one and declared themselves. It seems 90% of all people will just go along. We know some Serbs who grew up under communism and were adults when the USSR collapsed. They said it wasn't a big deal to them, just that they could get jeans easier. People are the biggest threat to their own liberty.
I enjoy poking at your theories, its mentally stimulating. I have been thinking that if Libertopia were established tomorrow, it wouldn't have a large impact on my life other than drastically lower taxes and a little more hassle in dealing with others. I am not really prevented from doing anything I want to do as it is...For now, next year, who knows?
The link to why libertarianism is so dangerous brings me back here, am I missing something?
DeleteYou weren't missing something- I put the wrong link there. Not even sure how that happened. Correct link (I hope...it's been "one of those days").
ReplyDelete"I see these things in the news all over the world and what jumps out at me is the surprisingly large number of people who will not, by choice, get along in society."
I think I see the problem. The "news" is skewed and shows you the exceptions. And generally focuses on the negative exceptions. I don't know people like those the "news" focuses on. Yes, I know those people are out thewre, but if they were the norm, their behavior wouldn't be "newsworthy". If things were really as bad as you seem to believe, nothing would ever work. It would be completely irrelevant whether there was a government or a free society because bad people would always completely outnumber and overwhelm the decent people. I know that isn't the case because I interact with people all the time without a cop watching us. It never occurs to me to attack or steal, yet I am always aware of that possibility from others. That's just life.
"Its like some people have an over abundance of assertiveness and not only won't be told what to do, they also have a need to dominate others."
So why set up a "system" tailor-made for them to abuse? It's like knowing pedophiles exist, so you set up a daycare that will have only one adult per room full of kids, no real oversight, and invite them to work there "no strings attached".
"People are the biggest threat to their own liberty."
Yep. And I would never force liberty on others. I just don't appreciate when they violate mine because they are scared of liberty for themselves.
In some places bad people do completely outnumber or at least overwhelm the good people, ie. Africa, and nothing works.
DeleteThe reason you want more than one adult per room in your daycare is because you know pedophiles will be drawn to that job like flies to shit or lobbyists to Congress. Is that repetitive? The system isn't set uo for them to abuse, its set up to prevent them from setting up their own system.
I have never seen a situation where anarchy/libertarianism lasted longer than it took one group to dominate their competitors. From Revolutionary France, to the African bush, to the deepest, darkest Amazonian rainforest, to the arctic circle, to the South Pacific islands there has never been a group that wasn't hierarchical and in conflict with other groups as either aggressor or defender. I don't see how libertarianism could even be implemented beyond the individual and those who don't want to will be free to form a "system" of which you are not participating. AKA government. If the Sicilian mob can out coerce the official coercive government, then why can't they out coerce a bunch of unorganised individuals?
I'm using the mob as an example, but it could be any group who want control.
Watched the video.
DeleteSarcasm aside, he just described the cycle of creating a government that we see all through history. It seems to be human nature. How do you break the cycle?
Have you read any of this blogs tales of end of gov?
http://shtfschool.com/
granted, its the immediate aftermath of a loss of stability which is most violent as people panic, but he has some interesting stories about how different people reacted to that loss. A Bosnian Serb my wife knows won't talk about the war at all, but he apparently hates Croatians with a passion.
"In some places bad people do completely outnumber or at least overwhelm the good people, ie. Africa, and nothing works."
DeleteThat's how the "news" reports it, anyway. A guy I know who lived there had a completely different view, and some fascinating tales of the time he was there. Never mistake the "system" that people are subjected to for the individuals who live in an area.
"The system isn't set uo for them to abuse, its set up to prevent them from setting up their own system."
The difference is... what? Whether they set up their own system or become the "old system" the result is the same: Pedophile Daycare/Government.
"I have never seen a situation where anarchy/libertarianism lasted longer than it took one group to dominate their competitors."
Even if that's the case it doesn't justify institutionalizing theft and coercion. Even though everyone eventually dies, you don't justify murder that way.
"I don't see how libertarianism could even be implemented beyond the individual..."
There is nothing but individuals. I know that most people have been fooled into not believing that, but it doesn't make it less true. I don't need to steal or attack. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. And if they do it anyway you have the absolute human right to try to stop them. Government gets in the way of that. Everything happens one individual at a time. Only. Collectives do nothing; individuals do everything. It's why a lot of people have an issue with people like me even speaking of "the government": it is an illusion. There are only individual thieves and attackers (using either the myth of "government" or some other lie to justify their evil acts).
"...those who don't want to will be free to form a "system" of which you are not participating."
So? I don't care if a group sets up a communist enclave until they try to force others to join (or stay in) against their will. Churches don't have exclusive territory over a neighborhood, why should "political systems"? What group anyone chooses to form or join is none of my concern until they aggress or steal, and then I don't have any need to scold them or tell them the error of their ways, I just have the option of defending myself and my property. As do they.
"If the Sicilian mob can out coerce the official coercive government, then why can't they out coerce a bunch of unorganised individuals?"
They might be able to, but it is a lot harder to "take over" when there is no centralized infrastructure to co-opt.
Libertarianism:
DeleteAs a personal philosophy, it's worth is subjective. As a group philosophy, its moot.
"How do you break the cycle?"
DeleteBy convincing one person at a time that they don't need that crap. LOL. I became convinced years ago; I meet more people all the time who have become convinced. Government schools are the reproductive organ of The State, and one big reason it is good to get people away from them.
One resource that has been a big help to a lot of people is The On Line Freedom Academy. If you are so inclined to really look past what you have been taught to believe, you might dip a toe in to the index page and give it a look.
I will check out that site you linked to. Regardless of how you feel about it, we may be in for similar circumstances.
But, as you say, there are rough times when you have sudden change- even a potentially good change. It's why even positive "major life events" increase the risk of death for those "fortunate" people. For you to heal, it's gonna hurt.
There is no such thing as a "group philosophy". There is action according to principle, but at the individual level only. A group can not act. Even a mob is only individuals, even if they are emboldened by the actions of the others around them. Whether anyone else in the world is "libertarian" or not doesn't matter to my actions. I know it is wrong to initiate force, to commit theft/fraud, and to trespass on private property regardless of anyone else's opinions on the matter. And I will act on that knowledge.
DeleteSure, it would be "nice" if everyone agreed with me, but it isn't necessary and it doesn't prove anything that they don't. I can do this with or without their cooperation, and that's the biggest strength of libertarianism.
'There is no such thing as a "group philosophy"'
DeleteMy point was that your inalienable rights will always be infringed upon since you're unlikely to live in a larger libertarian society. You will always be an oppressed minority subject to a government you see as illegitimate.
Haha! I just started skimming through the online Freedom Academy and I disagree with a fundamental premise. I do not believe people are rational, I believe we are capable of thinking rationally, just that its not the default setting. I believe people are emotional and rationalize emotional decisions. I believe that the more personal a decision is, the less likely we are to make a rational decision. I have debated people on numerous occasions to the point that they agreed that their decision was irrational, but they went ahead with it anyway. That is patently irrational.
DeleteOther than the NAP and inalienable rights, are there any other absolutes in your world view?
"I do not believe people are rational"
DeleteWell, that would give you a different world view, for sure.
"I have debated people on numerous occasions to the point that they agreed that their decision was irrational, but they went ahead with it anyway."
Me too. Many times. I even have had some admit to it: "I don't care what the facts are! I'm going to believe what I want to believe!" But to me, this indicates they are rational, but are emotionally invested in believing things they know (at a deep level) to be irrational. If a person doesn't accept that action A will lead to consequence X, then they don't survive long. Fortunately for most people, their irrationality is more for show, but when their lives are on the line they generally go with the rational. Until they don't, and then they suffer for it.
"are there any other absolutes in your world view?"
The truth is the truth, whether anyone believes it or not.
Are any others necessary, or even real? I mean, I think it is absolute that to cause intentional harm to a person who doesn't deserve to be harmed right now (because they are not initiating force etc. etc.) is wrong. But I suppose that goes back to the ZAP.
"...your inalienable rights will always be infringed upon..."
ReplyDeleteThat is very true. There will always be bad people- even in Libertopia. It doesn't really matter to me what they call themselves, or how they try to justify or legitimize their actions. If you can't be free under a government, you'd probably find some excuse to whine in a free society, too.
And I don't really consider myself "oppressed", even though I do acknowledge that government is oppressive. You work around the bad guys, wherever you may be. Everyone always has had to do that.
"If you can't be free under a government, you'd probably find some excuse to whine in a free society, too."
DeleteI mentioned earlier that I'm pretty unfettered other than taxes.
Gun "laws", government red tape, seat belt "laws", drug "laws" (even requiring prescriptions and such), and all that doesn't bother you at all? Do you realize that you are paying many times more for everything you buy and do in order to support the regulation and bureaucracy of government? What could you do with 8 times more money? Nothing worthwhile?
DeleteI'm not saying you should feel "fettered", but what I am saying is that you shouldn't be content to stand in the fire ant bed because you are only focusing on the molten lava and ignoring the meadow. There is always a "better". Why not walk toward it?
More money is always nice. Laws that protect me from myself do annoy me and redtape is irritating. Life in Libertopia will be full of various agreements, verbal and written, between individuals with no standardization, and you will have to keep track of all them. This seems to me to be no less irritating than filling out a form to buy a gun.
DeleteAs for the fire ants, of course things can always be better. Of course, better is a matter of opinion. There is no argument for liberty being objectively better than imprisonment. In fact, imprisonment doesn't deter some people from choosing a career in crime, or leaving that career after their first incarceration.
Being swarmed by fire ants is objectively bad, you can actually die if it goes on long enough or your body is weakened by sickness. This is not the same as the inconvenience of red tape. Red tape is more like mosquitos. They're annoying, and you do what you can to avoid them, but people aren't going to move because of them.
"Life in Libertopia will be full of various agreements ... and you will have to keep track of all them."
DeleteWhy? Don't you see what a good business opportunity that would be? Provide a service to keep up with a person's agreements and alert them when one is relevent to what they are doing now. Or design a phone app (or whatever the next tech might be) to keep track. I have hundreds of "favorites" on my computer, yet I don't need to keep track of them. I ignore them until one is needed, then I know where to look.
"Red tape is more like mosquitos. They're annoying..."
Mosquitoes have killed more people than probably any other critter. Maybe more than all the other multi-cellular critters combined. And government red tape also kills. It's just harder to point out the victims because you can always say it wasn't the paperwork to get a gun that killed her, it was the ex-husband, ot it wasn't the FDA that killed her, it was the cancer while she was denied the experimental treatment she was willing to risk.
At best your argument tells me neither is objectively better.
DeleteI've heard the FDA argument before, and while I agree its far too slow and expensive, I think the idea is necessary. I would assume Libertopia would end up with a company that tests drugs and medical procedures. I don't know enough about internal medicine, nor do I have the time to learn (and maybe not even the aptitude), to make an intelligent decision about the relative safety of a food preservative or a new medicine. I am not willing to be a guinea pig, nor to take the manufacturers word for it. I doubt I am alone in this, so some private company fills the gap. Pretty soon, the only way to sell your product or get patients for your breakthrough medical procedure is to have this company's seal of approval. As it stands, today, medical tourism exists. Folks go to Mexico or Europe and pay cash for procedure that they can't get here.
As far as guns, I agree. Guns should be as easy to buy as ink pens.
On the subject of the various agreements, it seem libertarianism would quickly turn into a lawyers wet dream. Maybe they'd be called something else, but their job would be the same, arguing the semantics of a contract, only without universal standards (AKA laws) of acceptable practices to base an argument on.
"I would assume Libertopia would end up with a company that tests drugs and medical procedures"
DeleteProbably several companies competing to give the best (fastest, most accurate, least future problems) certification. Monopolies are never good. Hence a big problem with the FDA.
"...libertarianism would quickly turn into a lawyers wet dream"
No, that's what we currently have. LOL. Just look at the percentage of politicians, judges, etc. who are lawyers or former lawyers. If Libertopian contracts were written in "legaleze" that only lawyers were qualified to interpret, probably no one would use that contract writer again. Look at the Constitution- it was written in plain every day language, but now we are told it takes lawyers to tell us what "shall not be infringed" means. Lawyers are not necessary for clear communication, and work very hard to destroy any chance of it.
There might not be "universal standards", but then again, why not? Some things work, and some things don't. Whether it is a contract or a motor. The same goes for language. The acceptable standards are you don't initiate force and you don't steal/defraud. Why not experiment beyond that?
Professional arbitrators base their livlihood on being fair. Presumably, you would not enter into an arbitration of you thought the arbitrator was bought and paid for by your opponent. This would lead to professional representatives. From your post on representatives:
Delete"These "reps" will make arrangements for arbitration if needed, but will usually actually negotiate you out of it.
Obviously, if you are really a jerk who can't stay out of trouble, they will either charge you a very large price for the trouble you cause, or they will refuse to represent you anymore. Representing a known troublemaker could damage their reputation, after all."
Sounds like today's legal counsel. Like today's legal industry, representatives would also be an industry. Like all industries, they will have their jargon. Pretty soon you have the equivalent of lawyers. The only difference would be the ability to opt out. However, if you want to take me to arbitration, and I demand a pro and you refuse, I refuse arbitration. Now what?
I'm also curious about slander and libel in Libertopia.
"Presumably, you would not enter into an arbitration of you thought the arbitrator was bought and paid for by your opponent."
DeleteYep. That's why I mentioned finding a "mutually-satisfactory arbitrator". There are so many that if you can't find one to agree to, you are actually just refusing arbitration- so you lose.
And, of course there will be professionals, in every business (hence: "business")- that just means they charge for services. If someone is good at representing you, why would you demand they do the work for free?
The "representatives" are not the arbitrators, and are not a necessary component. Actually, there is no "necessary component" since you are free to contract with anyone and come up with your own agreements- hey, kinda like you can do now if you don't get The State involved! Probably, unless you get into trouble a lot, there wouldn't be much need for their services, and therefore the establishment of a "jargon" that would not be understandable to "regular people" would be seen as a failure.
One huge conflict of interest that exists now is that the State pays the judges and all the court staff (including a lot of the lawyers), even in cases where government is one of the interested parties. That's a "fail" before it even begins. Now, if you trust a set-up like that, there are "package deals" you can agree to, where the arbitrator, the representatives, and everyone else involved is one company. But would you still hire them in a case you had with one of their business partners?
The thing is, lawyers aren't bad- it is only giving them power by having political offices for them to seek, where they can write more "laws" that empower more lawyers that is the bad thing.
If faith in any part of this starts to fail, there will be alternatives offered- since there is no monopoly. You would be free to find a better way- as long as you don't initiate force, or steal/defraud.
If you refuse arbitration, or refuse to abide by the agreement, you have lost. That just means that the other person can advertise your refusal to the newspapers, your boss, your family, the bar you hang out at, on billboards, and with agencies that track such matters. A false report would go against you, though, and you could owe restitution.
Which gets into slander and libel.
Say or write what you want, but if you can't back it up in case your target demands arbitration, you could end up owing more than you are willing to pay. If you become known as the "Weekly World News of Libertopia", probably no one would take you seriously enough to care what you said anyway- but it's a risk. Better to be The Onion.
The Weekly World News is still in business because people read it even though "everybody knows" its BS. Same could be said for the mainstream media and a million internet sites with millions of hits a day. I can say what I want, but if you can't prove its untrue, then I have sowed doubt. If I'm slandering/libeling you, that's all I want. Screw arbitration, I've already decided that the cost of refusing it is less than the benifit of slandering you.
DeleteI like watching football occasionally. The thing I don't like about it is how often the game stops. Constant penalties, lots of regs, commercial time outs and resetting before each play, etc.
The system we have now is football, but what you suggest is calvinball. The rules are made up as you go along and if you don't like them, ignore them. There's no way to build a strategy, its all reaction to the other players whims.
Laws exist because enough people wanted them. Governments exist for the same reason. The problem is the larger the group, the less likely it is to find agreement. Multiple minority groups push for the laws and governments they want against each other.
Saying, we don't have government doesn't get rid of the groups or change their desires. It also doesn't prevent coercion, you just get coerced through a different mechanism. Governments are of or from the people they govern, they tend to represent the most motivated groups. All a government is is a group of people. You get the government that most want, whether its our democratic socialist government or the Sicilian mob.
For the record, I mostly watch soccer. No commercials!
"Screw arbitration, I've already decided that the cost of refusing it is less than the benifit of slandering you."
ReplyDeleteOnly because you live in a society where reputation doesn't matter, and you haven't gone through arbitration (or refused it) in a free society.
"...what you suggest is calvinball. The rules are made up as you go along and if you don't like them, ignore them."
Nope. It's funny, but that exactly how I see the current "system"- and I don't trust those who make up the whimsical "rules" to suit themselves and their cronies.
"There's no way to build a strategy, its all reaction to the other players whims. "
Sure there is. Don't initiate force, don't steal, do all you say you are going to do. Nothing whimsical about that at all.
Natural Law exists because it is reality. Statutory "law" exists because bad guys convinced enough people that it was in their own interest to put up with them. Government is nothing but roving bandits moving into your house and claiming they are protecting you from "other" bandits. It's a lie. Sure, lots of people believe lies, but that's no reason to pretend the lies are truth. It's more reason to expose the lies.
But, let me change course here for a bit...
Let me see if I understand what you are arguing for: Are you saying that society is not possible without institutionalized theft and coercion?
If that is what you are saying, well... I know I don't need those things to interact with others, so I know you are mistaken.
If that's not what you are saying, then please clear that up for me.
Can you not see any way to form a society (or let one evolve) without using coercion and theft? If you can see a way, based upon whatever you imagine it could be based on - describe it for me. If not, then you'll always have the broken, thuggish kleptocracy you seem to want, so why worry about what I am advocating?
I find what you're advocating interesting, that's why I read your blog. I'm trying to figure how its supposed to come about. It seems to rest on the idea that people will all spontaneously realize this is the best way, but even you allude to what prevents it,
Delete"Statutory "law" exists because bad guys convinced enough people that it was in their own interest to put up with them."
this is human nature, and a pillar of your philosophy, people working for their best interest.
You mentioned earlier that your IQ makes you a minority (I assume you mean its high) so you recognize that not every person has an equal ability to reason. You repeatedly tell me that people are manipulated to accept government. If all people worldwide are so easy to manipulate against their best interest, how do expect the system you propose to ever take hold, let alone last.
I guess I just don't see anything to prevent a "voluntary association" becoming a "government" who's fees/voluntary contributions eventually become a tax.
My personal political philosophy is subsidiarity, local government. Taking the existing US as an example, State sovereignity. The Fed acts as mediator for interstate issues and a focal point for foreign policy. Elected reps and appointed Senators and very little federal power, especially domestically.
Each State can decide its own gov, from monarchy to Libertopia, I don't care.
I still have the same problem you do; how to prevent motivated, pursuasive and amoral people, or groups of such, from taking over. I think they always will, given enough time.
As an aside, I think pretty much anything can work in an idealogically homogenous group.
I forgot to mention, regarding:
Delete"Can you not see any way to form a society (or let one evolve) without using coercion and theft?"
All societies have been formed with a government or evolved one.
"...people will all spontaneously realize this is the best way"
DeleteI doubt it. It would be nice, though. I don't know how it could happen. I'm trying to concentrate on the "after" on this blog.
The thing is, it doesn't take all the people- I don't need everyone to interact voluntarily- only those I deal with. And I am already making progress there. When those around you know you see their dependence upon theft and coercion as just as bad as raping pre-schoolers, they do tend to try to alter their behavior somewhat. I see it happening all the time in my personal sphere.
If you already have a foundation based on voluntaryism in place, fewer people will feel the need to replace the current cancerous tumor of State with another "new and improved tumor" once it fails. And it is failing even now.
"...people working for their best interest..."
Having "legitimized" thieves and attackers is not in many people's best interest. I am helping some people see that. I can't do it alone, and fortunately I don't have to. Will all the efforts be enough? I don't know. Ten years ago I wasn't even aware of any of this, and even though I instinctively knew "taxation" was theft, I never gave it any conscious thought. It just was what it was. But someone got me to thinking by exposing me to the fact that others also understood, and were doing something about it. One person at a time is how every change comes about. It is in my best interest to try to get others to begin living by the ZAP. But my real best interest comes from my own actions, no one else's.
"I guess I just don't see anything to prevent a 'voluntary association' becoming a 'government' who's fees/voluntary contributions eventually become a tax."
Even if it eventually happens, it is very good to hit the "reset" button occasionally. The more people come to see the necessity of the "voluntary" part, the less likely the thugs will keep getting away with co-opting consensual arrangements for non-consensual purposes.
"My personal political philosophy is subsidiarity, local government. Taking the existing US as an example, State sovereignity. The Fed acts as mediator for interstate issues and a focal point for foreign policy. Elected reps and appointed Senators and very little federal power, especially domestically. "
How did that work out? It went the direction every government has always gone. The states have no sovereignty (and really can't have any because only individuals, not collectives, are sovereign). But I suppose you are talking about how the idea was sold to people back then, not how it actually played out.
"Each State can decide its own gov, from monarchy to Libertopia, I don't care."
You still have a tyranny of the majority, and it is still illegitimate. It's like saying everyone who lives in this square on the map automatically belongs to The Church of Heavenly Hosts, and everyone who lives in the neighboring square on the map belongs to First Amalgamated Angelic Supporters, Inc. There is no reason to not have overlapping voluntary organization. You don't have Baptists forcibly dunking Catholics or Catholics excommunicating Mennonites.
"how to prevent motivated, pursuasive and amoral people, or groups of such, from taking over. I think they always will, given enough time."
So why do half the work for them by legitimizing their "system"?
And, so your answer to "Can you not see any way to form a society (or let one evolve) without using coercion and theft?" is no. That would mean society itself is illegitimate. You can't do the right thing by doing the wrong thing, and theft and coercion are wrong. If "government"/theft/coercion is inevitable, why not at least work to make it a little harder for them?
I do see that a patchwork of competing "sovereign states"- or even counties or towns- would be an improvement. It's why I personally support things like the Free State Project and Free State Wyoming. Yes, I believe a "free state" is an oxymoron, but sometimes to kill the dragon you need to chop it into manageable pieces.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think people should have to pick up and move to be able to live under the government of their choice, or live without one. Yeah, it's hard for people to see that one. Government is an idea so deeply embedded in their heads. But there are lots of lies just as thoroughly embedded- that doesn't make any of them true or good.
I don't think the idea of the individual as you mean it is a part of human nature. Everybody that i have ever met has seen themselves as part of something, usually several somethings. From family, to community, to school affiliation/s, to sports teams, to nations, etc. Being social animals, we tend toward clannishness. Sometimes its bad, most of the time its good, many hans make light work.
Delete"I just don't think people should have to pick up and move to be able to live under the government of their choice, or live without one. "
I don't think people should be forced to live in a society that doesn'r agree with their values. Borders are necessary to limit the pro gov areas from forcible expansion. In practice, I would bet that most would stay where they are for reasons of personal history. I just don't think government, or lack there of, is as important to most people as it seems right now. If the local gov is to onerous, they will change it.
You keep describing government as "illegitimate". What makes something legitimate, including the zero aggression pact? Is it not merely general agreement that makes something legitimate?
"I don't think the idea of the individual as you mean it is a part of human nature"
DeleteSure it is. Even pack animals like wolves are individuals. Ants and bees, less so. But humans are not bees or wolves, and are individuals first, cooperative second. The fact that we can "belong" to several different groups at a time is a demonstration that we really don't belong to any of those groups- the groups belong to each individual who considers themselves a part of that group. It's an expression of a uniquely human individuality.
"Borders are necessary to limit the pro gov areas from forcible expansion."
Really? So why do they do the opposite in practice? Anything that can keep "them" out, keeps "us" in. A cage is a cage even if it keeps the sharks out so they can't eat you- it will still kill you if you can't get out. And, the sharks are almost always a lot less dangerous than those who promote the cages would have you believe. In fact, the only real "dangers" from them come from consequences of allowing the "gatekeepers" to impose counterfeit "laws" on you.
"I just don't think government, or lack there of, is as important to most people as it seems right now."
I don't really see it as being important to very many people, even now. They accept it as a given- "death and taxes" and all that. Just like people used to see (other forms of) slavery as a given- until they realized it was evil and needed to go away- or at least be demonized and condemned.
"If the local gov is to onerous, they will change it."
And replace it with something just as bad- if not immediately just as bad, then as soon as it takes root. I'd just like to help some people see how unnecessary Rulers are. People can listen or not.
"What makes something legitimate, including the zero aggression pact?"
Whether or not it violates Natural Law. Have you ever seen this video? If not, you need to watch it. It is a logical, step by step, illustration.
I watched the video. The whole non initiation of force thing sounds like some college students "philosophising". The tone sounds exactly the same to me as communist theorizing. Both have narrowed all of the ills of humanity down to one thing and if we can only get people to do/not do that one thing...Utopia!
DeleteIf we could get people to stop raping, there'd be no rape! Some people want to rape and they're going to rape, usually more than once. Some people want to rule, what are they going to do?
Its too simplistic. If that's all it took, some people would have tried it.
At what point is a person considered to "own themselves"? An infant is completely dependent on a care taker, even a 10 year old is ill equipped to be independent in a modern society. What about mentally/physically handicapped people who can't produce anything of value to trade? Or the elderly?
Society is more complex than "everybody be cool".
I was wondering how water/sewer and power are handled in Libertopia. I assume anybody can start a company providing these things. If that the case, how do you handle competing water/sewer pipes and power wires?
"Both have narrowed all of the ills of humanity down to one thing and if we can only get people to do/not do that one thing...Utopia!"
DeleteNope. I have said over and over again there is no Utopia. There will always be bad people. That is why it's foolish to set up (or continue) a "system" perfectly situated for bad people to gain advantage over everyone else. And the ZAP is essential, but not sufficient. As I have also said previously.
"If we could get people to stop raping, there'd be no rape! "
You may ridicule, but it's true. However, that's not even what I am saying here. I am saying that I recognize that rapists will rape until you stop them. The best way to do that is to not protect them with "laws". Don't criminalize self defense, don't make it artificially difficult for a woman to own and to carry any kind of weapon she wants, everywhere she goes, openly or concealed, without ever asking permission of anyone.
"Some people want to rape and they're going to rape, usually more than once. Some people want to rule, what are they going to do?"
Both people are predators and need to be dealt with the same way- the first time they initiate force (which is what raping/"ruling" is) they need to be killed in self defense. That is only problematical because "society" has allowed the bad guys to claim that their actions are "legitimate".
"...some people would have tried it."
I have. It works in the real world, every day. I have yet to find even one real-life instance where it fails to work.
"At what point is a person considered to "own themselves"?"
I can't answer that for anyone else. My own personal thought on the matter is they own themselves when they say they do- when they act on it and accept the consequences.
"An infant is completely dependent on a care taker, even a 10 year old is ill equipped to be independent in a modern society."
Yes. They can still own themselves, even if they can't exercise that ownership fully, yet. But you can't think thoughts for an infant or a 10 year-old. You have no right to destroy them, so you obviously don't own them. If you don't own them, who would you claim does?
"What about mentally/physically handicapped people who can't produce anything of value to trade? Or the elderly?"
Not all "value" is material. There are lots of people, even now, who have a strong desire to help the "less-fortunate". Before government created "welfare" and drove charity aside, churches and voluntary organizations provided care to those whose family couldn't or wouldn't. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't worse than what happens now. And now too many people will ignore those in need because they have been trained to believe its "government's job" to take care of "those people".
"Society is more complex than 'everybody be cool'."
Yes it is, and that is not what I'm saying. Not at all. I'm saying "everybody be cool, but if you aren't there will be consequences that you may not want to deal with." There's a huge difference.
"I was wondering how water/sewer and power are handled in Libertopia. I assume anybody can start a company providing these things."
DeleteYes, anyone with the resources can start a business to provide anything they want.
"If that the case, how do you handle competing water/sewer pipes and power wires?"
There is no "one size fits all" answer to that. Let's say a company has set up to provide water to a neighborhood. This would still be possible by Unanimous Consent. If one neighbor doesn't want to do business with that company he has options. He could contract with a company in an adjoining neighborhood and either have a tank put on (or under) his property, get a new water line installed, or something I can't foresee- or he might drill his own well or set up a rainwater collection system.
For the sewer, perhaps companies would sell septic systems, have a sewer collection pipe, or even an underground storage tank they would come clean out on a scheduled basis. Maybe one company would own a main sewage pipe and other smaller companies would contract to use the pipe, but would be responsible for the system from the house to the main pipe. Maybe composting toilets would become a big deal. Maybe companies would want to buy your waste to use as a basis of fertilizer.
Power could be provided in many different ways as well. Perhaps there could still be power companies that run wires all over, but maybe someone would figure out a dependable way to transmit power wirelessly. Or maybe solar would become more important, or safe home-based nuclear power plants (there has been some huge strides toward that, but government is crippling innovation there, too).
The thing is, there are so many possibilities when it comes to doing anything. There is not one "only way". But just try to do something similar to what I describe where any government/corporation enforces a monopoly and see what happens.
Let people innovate and hold them individually accountable if they harm people or property.
My point about children, handicapped and elderly was not so much care as independence. We are talking about people who simply aren't able to be independent. Maybe I don't understand what is meant by "self ownership", but I can't see a low functioning autistic who can't communicate and is completely dependent on a caregiver for life as fully owning themselves. They can't produce anything with their labor and time or negotiate for goods and services.
DeleteI am not trying to pick, but I know somebody who has a low functioning autistic son so its on my mind.
I believe that parents are(not "should be", but "are") responsible for their children until they're adults. Not responsible for their care, but for their behaviour to some extent. In other words, if your kid breaks my window, I'm going to come to you to, not your kid. The point of child rearing is not just to keep them alive, its to teach them how to get along in life. For the record, I think adulthood should begin earlier, I would suggest 16.
Its true, you said there is no utopia, I was being snide. I have said before that not having a system doesn't prevent bad guys from organising. Today, when thay spontaneously organise, we call them gangs.
The burglers, petty theives, carjackers, contract killers, etc. are all engaging in a trade. Just like plumbing, criminals have certain skill sets and tools and procedures to complete their "job". Just like any other trade, criminals choose their's and specialize in one or two aspects.
Also, like tradesmen, they are for hire. Having no system just allows these bad guys to create their own system even more favorable to them. I'll point to the Sicilian mob, again, or the triads, yakuza, cartels, "Al Queda", Russian mob or whoever. Extortion, arson, murder for hire and kidnapping will be the moneymakers in Libertopia along with the usual theivery.
The same people who you don't like running your gov are the same people who run these groups. Oligarchy is the name of the game and the ruleswill be even more against you than they are now. Our "official" system acts as a restraint on them.
No system just seems like a "land of oppotunity" for the bad guys.
What we are seeing now with the "3rd American Revolution" and "III%" rumblings on the internet is a response to the bad guys in gov ignoring the restraint. If it gets bad enough, there will be a reset, but it won't lead to a libertarian free-for-all.
I don't know where you live, but if your State's gov is preventing women from buying weapons and defending themselves, you should move. I do agree that concealed carry should not require a permit.
Flipping through the channels, Alaska State Troopers is on. Stupid show, but it reminded of my experiences there.
DeleteThe Alaskan bush is fairly libertopian in that there's not much enforcement of laws outside the hubs. As a result, while drugs, and in some areas, alcohol, are illegal and expensive they are readily available. The resulting social disfunction is a serious problem. I'm not talking about gang related crime from smugglers fighting for territory. I'm talking about child abuse, incest, rape, elder abuse and murder as a direct result of intoxication.
"The same people who you don't like running your gov are the same people who run these groups."
DeleteSo why do you resist taking away their legitimacy? If it doesn't matter anyway, I mean? (and it isn't my government! I have no part in it.)
"Our 'official' system acts as a restraint on them."
I don't believe that for an instant. I've seen too much evidence to the contrary.
"...if your State's gov is preventing women from buying weapons and defending themselves"
Doesn't matter what the state government does if they don't nullify the feds' anti-gun "laws". This is Texas- where open carry is absolutely "illegal" if you are not a LEO, and where concealed carry is highly "illegal" without begging permission and getting put on a list.
"...drugs, and in some areas, alcohol, are illegal and expensive they are readily available. The resulting social disfunction is a serious problem."
And "laws" don't help that at all, do they? Prohibition always fails to solve addiction and abuse (in fact, generally exacerbating both). And those who are abused shouldn't risk "arrest" (kidnapping) for putting a bullet between the eyes of the abuser. Places where prohibition has been abandoned see a decrease in ALL the related problems. Even many former drug "law" enforcers have come to see the utter stupidity and failure of prohibition (but most of them want to "legalize and tax" rather than just end prohibition).
...
No matter what I say, you will have just one more objection- it seems you don't want liberty. And that's OK. I, however, do. If you don't want to be free- if liberty scares you or you are suspicious of it- I would never force you to be free, and I would leave you completely alone to live under any sort of "system" you desire. But that goes both ways. It isn't very nice to force a State on those who have no need of it. A compromise I would possibly consider is for your government to leave everyone alone until they initiate force or steal- then as long as you don't finance your government through theft I suppose it wouldn't be aggression to send enforcers after the bad guy. Drugged, drunk, or sober makes no difference.
But that's the problem I keep seeing: statists can't stand just leaving people alone.
A new post on Strike the Root struck home for me. I know I could do better communicating without alienating, but other than ignoring comments, I don't really know how. My problem is that I know from experience that liberty really does work. And I would really like to help other people see for themselves- not take my word for it. But I can't force you. If you aren't willing to take the first step, there isn't anything I can do about that.
From your Hooligan blog:
Delete"Civilization depends on unwavering respect for property rights, and the recognition of the right to defend property. Without the ability to own property, use it as you see fit, and defend it from those who wish to steal or destroy its value, we would still be living a nomadic stone age life. I don't know about you, but I enjoy some of the trappings of civilization, though, and I don't appreciate those who are tirelessly working to roll them back. "
I can't help but notice that the places with the most wealth and technology have governments, some of them very large governments, and the places that are still living nomadic, stone age life styles have weak governments.
So, if civilization depends on unwavering support for private property, I can conclude that government protects private property.
You say the system is corrupt because it is used to coerce.
I say coercion is a permanent part of human nature and a good system (US*) exists to limit the amount of coercion possible, largely by preventing the "bad guys" from designing the system (USSR).
* The US has obviously deteriorated significantly, but it still has one of the better freedom to standard of living ratios.
Who cares, though, nobody is listening to either of us, anyway! :)
"I can't help but notice that the places with the most wealth and technology have governments, some of them very large governments, and the places that are still living nomadic, stone age life styles have weak governments."
DeleteGovernment equals government. Yes, some are worse than others, but some cancer is more surely fatal than others. It doesn't mean you cheer for cancer.
"I can conclude that government protects private property."
You can, but you'd be wrong. Under government there is no such thing as "private property"- at least not in the government's opinion. Just try to keep your stuff without paying a ransom on it. Or try to do something at your house that harms no one, nor their property, yet that the local government has decided to prohibit. Like, say, keep chicken in town (yeah, some places you can, and some places you can't). Government might give the illusion of protecting private property, but that all it is: an illusion. You can possess it as long as you pay up, only use it in approved ways, and hope no one better connected decides they want it. Just try to keep something that the government has decided to prohibit and confiscate. I had a friend whose gun was taken after he chased away a guy who had shown up and fired a shot into the air. My friend never fired a shot, but when the cops showed up the other guy was gone, so they arrested my friend and took his gun. After an aquital and months of jumping through hoops to try to get his gun back, all he got was an "Oops, it's missing". The DA was a known gun collector. Did he decide he needed a Dan Wesson revolver?
"You say the system is corrupt because it is used to coerce."
Partly. It is used to coerce, but even worse, it is based completely upon theft and coercion. Theft and coercion are known as "the political method", as opposed to "the economic method" of getting your way. When you can't get your way by getting others to go along, you cheat and employ the political method. At its foundation it is wrong. It isn't that the "system" is used to coerce- it is coercion.
"When you can't get your way by getting others to go along, you cheat and employ the political method."
DeleteIf there's no political way, then you cheat by hiring a bunch of thugs and doing it the overtly violent way. Witness these "militia" groups and PMCs in Africa or the communist guerrillas in Latin America and rioters everywhere. Of course, if there are no rules, its not cheating, just survival of the fittest. Eithe way, wealthy, amoral people run the show.
Throughout history, people group together and set up something resembling a government. There are no exceptions.
The new government represents a compromise between the original people and codifies the agreed on values and rules of conduct. Everybody involved is in agreement. They do this because people like stability, to be able to point to "the way we do things" in a dispute, so they're "all on the same page".
Eventually, other people migrate into the area and new generations are born. The rules set up by the original group are seen, at least by that original group, as applying to everybody in whatever geographic area they see as their territory. They do not want to renegotiate with every individual or group who moves in.
If the new arrivals agree, then every thing is fine. If the new arrivals don't agree, then you have conflict, coercion. The different groups hold their own values over that of the other groups.
Both groups will attempt to coerce the other into agreeing or leaving. (If one group holds to ZAP, then only one group will be coercing and the other will be losing.)This is usually called "competition for resources" in primitive cultures and politics in advanced cultures, but its just competing values.
Desire for stability and primacy of group values guarantees government. "Outsiders" with different values moving into the territory guarantees coercion in protecting or promoting the indigenous values. This is human nature, anarchy is a temporary state if it ever actually exists.
Got distracted and forgot the second part!
DeleteBy not proactively codifying your values, you risk inadverdently making yourself an "outsider". For instance, say you live in a loose community of 1000 people. You're living life as a happy anarchist and it seems everybody else is to. Unbeknownst to you, 100 people have been hashing out a hierarchy and codifying their values. Six months later, after they've decided everything, you're told something you've been doing since day one is now against the rules and they've got an enforcement mechanism already in place.
Had everybody been involved in the beginning, maybe your opinion would matter, now it doesn't. The system is in place.
Alternatively, those people could move in from somewhere else, or be bribed by somebody outside your community. Doesn't matter, the point is your values have no percieved "legitimacy" to anybody outside your group.
Turn it around. You're an anarchist living in the US. You don't percieve the government to be legitimate for the various reasons you listed. Many people agree that the government is doing illegitimate things, but don't percieve the government itself to be illegitimate. They don't want to do away with it because it represent a shared culture and history. They can point to this thing called government as an "official" representation of their values and history. They will band together to defend it from "outsiders" even as they disagree with it internally.
The point of a government type structure is continuity of stability, the status quo. To universally define the disagreements that are a part of human interaction.
The systems that have lasted the longest belong to the most closed societies. The Amish have been doing things pretty much the same way for 200 years, the Native Americans had very stable cultures until we showed up, same with East Asians.
Native American "government" was mostly pretty informal, from what I can tell, because "outsiders" weren't an issue. Everybody in the known world had a similar set of values, protecting local customs wasn't a dire need
The US began somewhat homogenously, but by 1840 or so had seen an influx if competing values, most notably after the failed socialist revolution in Germany. These immigrants settled mostly in the NE and midwest and began to influence the indigrnous values. Meanwhile, the South had very little immigration and the values passed down through the to cultures began to diverge. As a result of two values competing we had a war, the most extreme example of protecting/promoting a group's values.
Since 1965, the US has been inundated with immigrants with all sorts of different values. Our government has become much more powerful and centralized in an attempt to protect or promote a certain set of values. No group has definitive command of the power structure (liberals seem to be pretty close, though) so it's direction is confused as different groups are controlling different aspects to protect/promote their values. Constantly creating more agencies, NGOs, think tanks, media outlets, etc. to fight with. Like deploying artillery on the battle field.
When one group gets enough control to make the other feel like they can't compete, it'll come to a head. Civil war, revolution, break up, whatever, people will divide into groups and start the whole thing over.
There's nothing new under the sun, certainly not when it comes to human behaviour.
"If there's no political way, then you cheat by hiring a bunch of thugs and doing it the overtly violent way."
ReplyDeleteThat is the political method. Everything is either done through the economic method or the political method. There is no third alternative.
The State uses the political method, but so does the mafia and the mugger and the thugs. If there is coercion or theft involved it is the political method no matter who is doing it.
"Throughout history, people group together and set up something resembling a government. There are no exceptions."
As long as it is consensual and doesn't employ the political method, that's just fine. "Something resembling a government" is OK. As I have stated, organization is wonderful; coercion is evil. If "Everybody involved is in agreement" then it is employing the economic method, rather than the political method, no matter what the goals are.
"Eventually, other people migrate into the area and new generations are born."
Yep. And no one can make a deal that applies to people who didn't explicitly consent. Not having moved away isn't consent. If I make you sign an agreement it can't apply to your kids, and it can't apply to anyone after you are dead. You have no authority to agree to anything on anyone else's behalf without their explicit consent.
"The rules set up by the original group are seen, at least by that original group, as applying to everybody in whatever geographic area they see as their territory."
Not after the original group is dead.
"If one group holds to ZAP, then only one group will be coercing and the other will be losing."
The ZAP doesn't prohibit using force in self defense.
"anarchy is a temporary state if it ever actually exists"
Anarchy is normal human condition, the only stable condition, and is the condition everyone- even the most rabid statist- lives the vast majority of their lives in. You don't allow someone to rule most of the acts you do during the day. No one tells you who you have to fall in love with, what you must eat, which store you must trade with, what color car to buy, what brand of clothes to wear, where to sit when you eat, etc. That is anarchy. Anarchy means "no king". For most of the things you do, you wait for no Ruler to give you permission.
I would recommend reading Our Enemy, The State, by Albert Jay Nock. In particular, Chapter 2 section II. It talks about the origins of The State and how it always operates, and addresses a lot of the things you mention above.
"Yep. And no one can make a deal that applies to people who didn't explicitly consent. Not having moved away isn't consent. If I make you sign an agreement it can't apply to your kids, and it can't apply to anyone after you are dead. You have no authority to agree to anything on anyone else's behalf without their explicit consent.
Delete"The rules set up by the original group are seen, at least by that original group, as applying to everybody in whatever geographic area they see as their territory."
Not after the original group is dead."
Other than killing the original group, I can't find a situation where the originals would be dead and new arrivals left to their own devices.
It seems that if the original group has set up its agreements for how society interacts, such as rules of use for public areas, then anybody who arrives would be bound by these, morally if not legally, for the simple reason that they are visitors. Anything they use that they haven't paid for is either private property or publicly held by the original group, which makes it essentially private.
Might doesn't make right, but, as we've seen throughout history, might does make rights.
"By not proactively codifying your values, you risk inadverdently making yourself an "outsider"."
ReplyDeleteGood thing I have already signed on to such a code: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
"Six months later, after they've decided everything, you're told something you've been doing since day one is now against the rules and they've got an enforcement mechanism already in place."
I can ethically kill them in self defense, hire others to help me, or enlist volunteers. Or I can move to a new area. Majority (or "might") doesn't make right. Just as a big (individual) bully can beat me up and take my stuff, his ability doesn't make him right. Me killing him in self defense isn't wrong, even if he says I'm not allowed to do that, and he has a gang to back him up. You always have to pick your battles.
"Many people agree that the government is doing illegitimate things, but don't percieve the government itself to be illegitimate."
Perception isn't reality, but I'm trying to help people change that perception anyway. Once upon a time "everyone knew"- or at least perceived- that the sun went around the Earth. They were wrong. People are wrong about the legitimacy of The State, too.
"They don't want to do away with it because it represent a shared culture and history."
I know. It's sad when people suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and don't see it. But you can't help those who love their chains. Someday, maybe, they will see that government- The State- has nothing whatsoever to do with the "shared culture", and history is the past, not the future. Continuing to do something because "we've always done it" isn't too bright when it's hurting you and your children.
"The point of a government type structure is continuity of stability, the status quo."
Doesn't work too well, does it? But there can be stability without coercion- The State and society are opposites, not the same thing. I think this is one of the biggest myths I run into on a regular basis.
"As a result of two values competing we had a war, the most extreme example of protecting/promoting a group's values."
Well, that war had more to do with "Northern states" (through the federal government) employing the political method to steal disproportionately from "Southern states" than anything else.
"Our government has become much more powerful and centralized in an attempt to protect or promote a certain set of values."
Yeah, the "values" of government supremacy. If you see anything else behind all the smoke and mirrors, you are playing right into it.
Once again, I highly recomment reading Our Enemy, The State. It goes into more scholarly detail on all these issues than I am willing to do. It might not change your mind, but it won't be a waste of time.
"But there can be stability without coercion- The State and society are opposites, not the same thing. I think this is one of the biggest myths I run into on a regular basis."
DeleteCoercion isn't necessary until groups of people disagree. That's also when government starts to grow. As the government grows, it becomes it's own society with its own values. When the values of the governed diverge too much from the values of the governors, the government will be brought back into line or replaced.
Government SHOULD be part of the society, it becomes a problem when its not.
"Other than killing the original group, I can't find a situation where the originals would be dead and new arrivals left to their own devices."
DeleteWhich of those who explicitly agreed to be bound by (or, more accurately, to bind the government with) the Constitution are still alive? No one is alive who wrote or ratified the Constitution.
""Coercion isn't necessary until groups of people disagree."
Only when you impose a "winner take all" kind of "system". If a group of us sit around and decide to order a pizza, we can haggle about the toppings, the crust, and all that. Those who can agree can then chip in and buy it, but those who can't agree to the toppings chosen aren't forced at gunpoint to pay for "their share" of the pizza they don't want. How is it any more "right" to force people to pay for government "services" they don't want, and kidnap or kill them if they refuse?
"Government SHOULD be part of the society, it becomes a problem when its not. "
If, by "government" you mean an agreement to deal with aggression, theft/fraud, and trespassing, then I agree. If by "government" you mean The State, a theft- and coercion-based non-consensual organization, then no, Civilization is something humans manage to create and maintain in spite of such "government", not because of it.
" How is it any more "right" to force people to pay for government "services" they don't want,"
DeleteJust because you don't want to pay for trash pick up and would rather burn it, doesn't give you the right to force me to smell your burning garbage...
Hold on. Do you envision a rural or urban Libertopia? A lot of what you suggest is doable in a sparsely populated region. However, in NY city, all the variable rules and agreements would be impossible.
Burning garbage smell would be a property rights issue. As would all pollution/litter cases.
DeleteRural and urban areas would each find the appropriate solutions- one size doesn't fit all.